[MustBeOnDrugs]

Re: Burn Liberals

This young person seems to have a huge problem with its autocorrect, which is routinely changing its age from 14 to 40. I guess it comes of using a secular operating system?

Cover your hair properly woman, or shave it off. Its your Sharia

1 Corinthians 11:6
“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”

[Dana723]

Re: Burn Liberals

I’m not the best math student but 40 years of child support? Is this man...what they call a retard?

Romans 12:16 [Be] of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.

I believe he is. Perhaps an innocent child like yourself shouldn't read his posts anymore. Have your father read them first.

[Esther B.]

Re: Burn Liberals

Cover your hair properly woman, or shave it off. Its your Sharia

1 Corinthians 11:6
“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”

How dare you talk to an upstanding, True Christian(TM) woman in such a way? Mrs. Lytton-Vasey's hair is properly covered and you have no right to order her around. You make me weary and I wish someone will ban you soon.

[DolliMoans]

Re: Burn Liberals

Dad stop running away. I finally found you you owe me child support money and Christmas presents for the past 40 years

It's good you weren't one of mine. The only present you need is a smack in the pants. Chances are in my home, you would have drowned on your own accord during birth!

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Burn Liberals

1 Corinthians 11:6
“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”

Now I don't want to get bogged down in the subjunctive mood because that poster did get the punctuation right. The quotation comes from a marvellous book called The Bible and I'm very happy to provide the context.

I Corinthians 11:4-10
4– Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5a But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head
5b For that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6a For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn:
6b But if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7a For a man indeed ought not to cover his head,
7b Forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God:
7c But the woman is the glory of the man.
8– For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9– Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Nothing there about Sharia. What we do see however is a very specific context in verse 5, a verse left out deliberately EITHER in a half baked attempt at OR as a result of exposure to Kitman. The link goes to a KJV source showing context very clearly and I'll highlight another part of the chapter (also in context) later on. For now though it's all about prayer.

The context is whether or not heads should be covered during prayer. This is so obvious that we can be certain the preceding verse was excluded for a reason.

Now this thread is about liberals and their novel use of language is fairly well known. Many of them are postmodernists and the gender-identity crowd take deconstructivism to its hilarious and inevitable conclusion. They never strike me as seeming very liberated, I must say, but I'm getting away from the point a little which is hairstyles. You've all seen them walking around, the green and orange coiffure resembling a Roman centurion's helmet, the sculpted sides and starched dreadlocks looking like purple broccoli, the insane rockabilly flat-top bleached out with blue and crimson polka dots no doubt very expensive to do but not, in their eyes, a blemish on their character. That is the context of the thread.

[ATTACH]27813[/ATTACH][ATTACH]27814[/ATTACH][ATTACH]27815[/ATTACH][ATTACH]27816[/ATTACH][ATTACH]27817[/ATTACH][ATTACH]27818[/ATTACH]

I Corinthians 11:14-16
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

The last verse highlights the liberal perspective. Far from being ashamed of a shorn head it's absurdly easy to find half a dozen examples actually celebrating the shorn look! It's always disappointing when efforts to correct apparent error are rejected, the hand of friendship spurned. Not everyone shares the same values and not all differences are sinful. The cherry picked verse read in context provides an open door for our witness to those who need Christ but who value different hairstyles.

The New Testament provides that open door. It's a shame we couldn't get through to that other one but hopefully now this thread is back on track.

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Re: Burn Liberals

Nothing there about Sharia. What we do see however is a very specific context in verse 5, a verse left out deliberately EITHER in a half baked attempt at OR as a result of exposure to Kitman.

Kitman is an interesting concept, isn't it? As I understand it, it's the Islamists' get out of jail free card, for use when caught out in a lie. Convenient but utterly, utterly Godless and just the sort of thing that your average liberal (and they are average - very, very average) would use.

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Burn Liberals

Yes. Like when the tell you about how efficient socialism is but omit the bit about exploding nuclear reactors.

The way liberals kowtow to their party apparatchiks regardless of the consequences is very similar. There's a change in the way they talk, sort of faster, talk over you, make with the hands, roll the eyes. Tawriyya is going on then but when they misdirect us it's not deception because we're infidels. If liberals had their way they'd line us up against the wall and shoot us. It's not as though there's no history to inform us of the tactics

And it's so easy to read the sources. Engels is very boring though. Their "manifesto" of 1848 borders on the droll momentarily but that other socialist drivel, Mein Kampf, honestly you'd rather watch paint dry.